































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Class 

Book 





















CORRESPONDENCE 




BETWEEN 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, ESQUIRE 

u 

PRESIDENT OP THE UNITED STATES, 


AND 

SEVERAL CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS 


CONCERNING THE CHARGE 


OP A DESIGN TO DISSOLVE THE UNION 


ALLEGED TO HAVE EXISTED IN THAT STATE. 


SECOND EDITION. 


Boston: 

PRESS OF THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER, 

VV. L. Lewis, Printer, No. 8, Cougress-Btreet. 



mdcc crxix. 



































* 




% 




t .1: SI 

.(? 

t 


t 



In Exchange, 

Ya’e Univ. IiiO* 
!8 Mr 1907 







t * 




% 







X 










I 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The National Intelligencer of the 21st of October last, con¬ 
tains a statement made by the President of the United States, 
and published by his authority, in which he denounces certain 
citizens of Massachusetts, as having been engaged in a design 
to produce a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of 
a separate Confederation. As no individual was named in that 
communication, a few citizens of Boston and its vicinity, who 
supposed that they or their friends might be considered by the 
public, if not intended by Mr Adams, to be implicated as par¬ 
ties to the alleged conspiracy, thought proper to address to him 
a letter dated on the 26th of November, asking for such a spe¬ 
cification of the charge and of the evidence as might tend to 
remove suspicion from the innocent, and to expose the guilty, if 
any such there were. To this letter they received a reply from 
Mr Adams, dated on the 30th of December, in which he de¬ 
clines to make the explanation requested of him, and gives his 
reasons for that refusal. 

This correspondence, together with the original communica¬ 
tion in the National Intelligencer, is now presented to the pub¬ 
lic, accompanied by an appeal to the citizens of the United 
States, in behalf of those who may be considered as implicated 
in this charge. 

If the result should be, either to fix a stigma on any citizens 
of Massachusetts, or on the other hand to exhibit Mr Adams 
as the author of an unfounded and calumnious charge, those 
who have made this publication will have the consolation of re¬ 
flecting that it is not they who began this controversy, and that 
they are not answerable for its result. That result they cheer¬ 
fully leave to an impartial and discerning public ; feeling assur¬ 
ed that the most thorough investigation will serve only more 
fully to prove the futility of the accusation. 









— 


FROM THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER OF OCT. 21, 1828. 


The publication of a letter from Mr Jefferson to Mr Giles, 
dated the 25th of December, 1825, concerning a communica¬ 
tion made by Mr Adams to Mr Jefferson, in relation to the em¬ 
bargo of 1S07, renders necessary the following statement, which 
we are authorized by Mr Adams to make. * 

The indistinctness of the recollections of Mr Jefferson, of 
which his letter itself feelingly complains, has blended together 
three distinct periods of time, and the information, which he did 
receive from Mr Adams, with events which afterwards occurred, 
and of which Mr Adams could not have informed him. It for¬ 
tunately happens that this error is apparent on the face of the 
letter itself. It says, ‘ Mr Adams called on me pending the 
embargo , and while endeavors were making to obtain its repeal.’ 
He afterwards says, that, at this interview, Mr Adams, among 
other things, told him that ‘ he had information, of the most un¬ 
questionable certainty, that certain citizens of the Eastern States, 
(I think he named Massachusetts particularly) were in negotia¬ 
tion with agents of the British government, the object of which 
was an agreement that the New-England States should take no 
further part in the war then going ow,’ &c. 

The embargo was enacted on the 22d of December, 1807, 
and repealed by the non-intercourse act on the 1st of March, 
1809. The war was declared in June, 1812. 

In August, 1809, Mr Adams embarked for Russia, nearly 
three years before the Declaration of War, and did not return to 
the United States till August, 1817, nearly three years after the 
conclusion of the peace. 

Mr Madison was inaugurated President of the United States, 
on the 4th of March, 1809. 

It was impossible, therefore', that Mr Adams could have given 
any information to Mr Jefferson, of negotiations by citizens of 
Massachusetts with British agents, during the icar, or having 




6 


relation to it. Mr Adams never had knowledge of any such 
negotiations. 

The interview, to which Mr Jefferson alludes, took place on 
the 15th of March, 1808, pending the embargo; but, at the ses¬ 
sion of Congress before the substitution for it of the non-inter¬ 
course act. The information given by Mr Adams to Mr Jeffer¬ 
son, had only an indirect reference even to the embargo, and 
none to any endeavors for obtaining its repeal. It was the 
substance of a letter from the Governor of Nova Scotia, to a 
person in the State of Massachusetts, written in the summer of 
1807, and before the existence of the embargo; which letter 
Mr Adams had seen. It had been shown to him without any 
injunction of secrecy, and he betrayed no confidence in commu¬ 
nicating its purport to Mr Jefferson. Its object was to counte¬ 
nance and accredit a calumny then extensively prevailing, among 
the enemies ofMr Jefferson, and the opponents of his adminis¬ 
tration, that lie and his measures were subservient to France ; 
and it alleged that the British government were informed of a 
plan, determined upon by France, to effect the conquest of the 
British provinces on this Continent, and a revolution in the gov¬ 
ernment of the United States, as means to which they were first 
to produce war between the United States and England. From 
the fact that the Governor of Nova Scotia had written such a 
letter to an individual in Massachusetts, connected with other facts, 
and with the movements of the party then predominant in that 
State, Mr Adams and Mr Jefferson drew their inferences, which 
subsequent events doubtless confirmed : but which inferences 
neither Mr Jefferson nor Mr Adams then communicated to each 
other. This was the only confidential interview which, during 
the administration of Mr Jefferson, took place between him and 
Mr Adams. It took place first at the request of Mr Wilson Ca¬ 
rey Nicholas, then a member of the House of Representatives of 
the United States, a confidential friend of Mr Jefferson; next, 
of Mr Robinson, then a senator from Vermont; and, lastly, of 
Mr Giles, then a senator from Virginia—which request is the 
only intervention of Mr Giles ever known to Mr Adams, be¬ 
tween him and Mr Jefferson. It is therefore not surprising, that 
no such intervention occurred to the recollection of Mr Jeffer¬ 
son, in December, IS25. 

This interview was in March, 180S. In May, of the same 
year, Mr Adams resigned his seat in the senate of the United 
States. 

At the next session of Congress, which commenced in Nov¬ 
ember, 1808, Mr Adams was a private citizen, residing at 
Boston. The embargo was still in force; operating with ex- 


7 


treme pressure upon the interests of the people, and was wielded 
as a most effective instrument by the party prevailing in the 
State, against the administration of Mr Jefferson. The people 
were constantly instigated to forcible resistance against it; and 
juries after juries acquitted the violators of it, upon the ground 
that it was unconstitutional, assumed in the face of a solemn de¬ 
cision of the District Court of the United States. A separation 
of the Union was openly stimulated in the public prints, and a 
Convention of Delegates of the New England States, to meet at 
New Haven was intended and proposed. 

Mr Giles, and several other members of Congress, during this 
session, wrote to Mr Adams confidential letters, informing him 
of the various measures proposed as reinforcements or substitutes 
for the embargo, and soliciting his opinions upon the subject. He 
answered those letters with frankness, and in confidence. He 
earnestly recommended the substitution of the non-intercourse for 
the embargo ; and, in giving his reasons for this preference, was 
necessarily led to enlarge upon the views and purposes of cer¬ 
tain leaders of the party, which had the management of the State 
Legislature in their hands. He urged that a continuance of the 
embargo much longer would certainly be met by forcible resis¬ 
tance, supported by the Legislature, and probably by the Judi¬ 
ciary of the State. That to quell that resistance, if force should 
be resorted to by the Government, it would produce a civil war; 
and that in that event, he had no doubt the leaders of the party 
would secure the co-operation with them of Great Britain.— 
That their object was and had been for several years, a disso¬ 
lution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate Con¬ 
federation, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although, not 
proveable in a Court of Law; and that, in the case of a civil 
war, the aid of Great Britain to effect that purpose would be as 
surely resorted to, as it would be indispensably necessary to the 
design. 

That these letters of Mr Adams to Mr Giles, and to other 
members of Congress, were read or shewn to Mr Jefferson, he 
never was informed. They were written, not for communica¬ 
tion to him, but as answers to the letters of his correspondents, 
members of Congress, soliciting his opinion upon measures in 
deliberation before them, and upon which they were to act. He 
wrote them as the solicited advice of friend to friend, both ardent 
friends to the Administration, and to their country. He wrote 
them to give to the supporters of the Administration of Mr Jef¬ 
ferson, in Congress, at that crisis, the best assistance, by his in¬ 
formation and opinions, in his power. He had certainly no 
objection that they should be communicated to Mr Jefferson ; 


8 


but this was neither his intention nor desire. In one of the 
letters to Mr Giles he repeated an assurance, which he had ver¬ 
bally given him during the preceding session of Congress, that 
he had for his support of Mr Jefferson’s Administration no per¬ 
sonal or interested motive, and no favor to ask of him whatever. 

That these letters to Mr Giles were by him communicated to 
Mr Jefferson, Mr Adams believes from the import of this letter 
from Mr Jefferson, now first published, and which has elicited 
this statement. He believes, likewise, that other letters from 
him to other members of Congress, written during the same ses¬ 
sion, and upon the same subject, were also communicated to him; 
and that their contents, after a lapse of seventeen years, were 
blended confusedly in his memory, first, with the information 
given by Mr Adams to him at their interview in March, 1 S 08 , 
nine months before; and next, with events which occurred dur¬ 
ing the subsequent war, and of which, however natural as a sequel 
to the p information and opinions of Mr Adams, communicated to 
him at those two preceding periods, he could not have received 
the information from him. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Boston, November 26 , 1828 . 

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

Sir, 

The undersigned, citizens of Massachusetts, residing in Bos¬ 
ton and its vicinity, take the liberty of addressing you on the 
subject of a statement published in the National Intelligencer of 
the 21st of October, and which purports to have been communi¬ 
cated or authorised by you. 

In that statement, after speaking of those individuals in this 
State, whom the writer designates as 1 certain leaders of the party 
which had the management of the State Legislature in their 
hands’ in the year 1808, and saying that in the event of a civil 
war, he (Mr Adams) ‘ had no doubt the leaders of the party 
would secure the co-operation with them of Great Britain,’ it is 
added, ‘ That their object was and had been for several years, 
a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate 
Confederation, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although 
not proveable in a court of law.’ 

This, sir, is not the expression of an opinion as to the nature 
and tendency of the measures at that time publicly adopted, or 
proposed, by the party prevailing in the State of Massachu¬ 
setts. Every citizen was at liberty to form his own opinions on 
that subject; and we cheerfully submit the propriety of those 
measures to the judgment of an impartial posterity. But the 
sentence which we have quoted contains the assertion of a dis¬ 
tinct fact, as one within your own knowledge. We are not per¬ 
mitted to consider it as the unguarded expression of irritated feel¬ 
ings, hastily uttered at a time of great political excitement. 
Twenty years have elapsed since this charge was first made, in 
private correspondence with certain members of Congress; and 
it is now deliberately repeated, and brought before the Public 
under the sanction of your name, as being founded on unequivo¬ 
cal evidence, within your knowledge. 

We do not claim for ourselves, nor even for those deceased 
friends, whose representatives join in this address, the title of 
leaders of any party in Massachusetts ; but we were associated 
2 



10 


in politics with the party pretailing here at the period referred 
to in the statement above mentioned, some of us concurred in all 
the measures adopted by that party; and we all warmly ap¬ 
proved and supported those measures. Many of our associates 
who still survive, are dispersed throughout Massachusetts and 
Maine, and could not easily be convened to join us on the pre¬ 
sent occasion. We trust, however, that you will not question 
our right, if not for ourselves alone, at least in behalf of the high¬ 
ly valued friends with whom we acted at that time, and especial¬ 
ly of those of them who are now deceased, respectfully to ask 
from you such a full and precise statement of the facts and evi¬ 
dence relating to this accusation, as may enable us fairly to meet 
and answer it. 

The object of this letter therefore is, to request you to state, 

First, Who are the persons, designated as leaders of the par¬ 
ty prevailing in Massachusetts in the year ISOS, whose object, 
you assert, was and had been for several years, a dissolution of 
the Union, and the establishment of a separate Confederation ? 
and 

Secondly, The whole evidence on which that charge is 
founded. 

It is admitted in the statement of the charge, that it is not 
proveable in a court of law, and of course that you are not in 
possession of any legal evidence by which to maintain it. The 
evidence however must have been such as in your opinion would 
have been pronounced unequivocal by upright and honorable 
men of discriminating minds; and we may certainly expect from 
your sense of justice and self respect a full disclosure of all that 
you possess. 

A charge of this nature, coming as it does from the first mag¬ 
istrate of the nation, acquires an importance which we cannot af¬ 
fect to disregard; and it is one which we ought not to leave un¬ 
answered. We are therefore constrained, by a regard to our 
deceased friends and to our posterity, as well as by a sense of 
what is due to our own honor, most solemnly to declare, that 
we have never known nor suspected that the party which pre¬ 
vailed in Massachusetts in the year 1808 , or any other party in 
this State, ever entertained the design to produce a dissolution 
of the Union, or the establishment of a separate Confederation. 
It is impossible for us in any other manner to refute, or even to 
answer this charge, until we see it fully and particularly stated, 
and know the evidence by which it is to be maintained. 

The undersigned think it due to themselves to add, that in 
making this application to you, they have no design nor wish to 


11 


produce an effect on any political party or question whatever. 
Neither is it their purpose to enter into a vindication or discus¬ 
sion of the measures publicly adopted and avowed by the per¬ 
sons against whom the above charge has been made. Our sole 
object is to draw forth all the evidence on which that charge is 
founded, in order that the public may judge of its application 
and its weight. 

We are Sir, with due respect, 

Your obedient servants, 


H. G. OTIS, 

ISRAEL THORNDIKE, 
T. H. PERKINS, 

WM. PRESCOTT, 

DANIEL SARGENT, 
JOHN LOWELL, 

WM. SULLIVAN, 


CHARLES JACKSON, 
WARREN DUTTON, 
BENJ. PICKMAN, 

HENRY CABOT, 

Son of the late George Cabot. 

C. C. PARSONS, 

Son of Theophilus Parsons, Esq. deceased. 

FRANKLIN DEXTER, 

Son of the late Samuel Dexter. 


MR ADAMS’ REPLY TO THE PRECEDING LETTER. 


Washington, 30 th December, 1828. 

Messrs H. G. Otis, Israel Thorndike, T. H. Perkins, William Pres¬ 
cott, Daniel Sargent, John Lowell, William Sullivan, Charles Jack- 
son, Warren Dutton, Benjamin Pickman, Henry Cabot, C. C. Parsons 
and Franklin Dexter— 

Gentlemen, 

I have received your letter of the 26th ult. and recogniz¬ 
ing among the signatures to it, names of persons for whom a 
long and on my part uninterrupted friendship, has survived all 
the bitterness of political dissension, it would have afforded me 
pleasure to answer with explicitness and candor not only those 
persons, but each and every one of you, upon the only questions 
in relation to the subject matter of your letter, which as men or 
as citizens I can acknowledge your right to ask ; namely whether 
the interrogator was himself one of the persons, intended by me 
in the extract which you have given, from a statement authorized 
by me and published in the National Intelligencer of 21st Octo¬ 
ber last. 

Had you or either of you thought proper to ask me this ques¬ 
tion, it would have been more satisfactory to me to receive the 
inquiry separately from each individual, than arrayed in solid 
phalanx, each responsible not only for himself but for all the 
others. The reasons for this must be so obvious to persons of 
your intelligence, that I trust you will spare me the pain of de¬ 
tailing them. 

But, Gentlemen, this is not all. You undertake your inquisi¬ 
tion, not in your own names alone; but as the representatives of 



13 


a great and powerful party, dispersed throughout the States of 
Massachusetts and Maine : A party commanding, at the time 
to which your inquiries refer, a devoted majority in the Legisla¬ 
ture of the then United Commonwealth; and even now, if judg¬ 
ed of by the character of its volunteer delegation, of great influ¬ 
ence and respectability. 

I cannot recognize you, on this occasion, as the representa¬ 
tives of that party, for two reasons—first, because you have 
neither produced your credentials for presenting yourselves as 
their champions, nor assigned satisfactory reasons for presenting 
yourselves without them. But, secondly, and chiefly, because 
your introduction of that party into this question is entirely gra¬ 
tuitous. Your solemn declaration that you do not know that the 
federal or any other party, at the time to which my statement re¬ 
fers, intended to produce the dissolution of the Union, and the 
formation of a new confederacy, does not take the issue, which 
your own statement of my charge (as you are pleased to con¬ 
sider it) had tendered. The statement authorized by me, spoke, 
not of the federal party, but of certain leaders of that party. In 
my own letters to the Members of Congress, who did me the 
honor at that agonizing crisis to our National Union, of soliciting 
my confidential opinions upon measures under deliberation, I 
expressly acquitted the great body of the federal party, not only 
of participating in the secret designs of those leaders, but even 
of being privy to or believing in their existence. I now cheer¬ 
fully repeat that declaration. I well know that the party were 
not prepared for that convulsion, to which the measures and de¬ 
signs of their leaders were instigating them; and my extreme 
anxiety for the substitution of the nonintercourse for the embar¬ 
go arose from the imminent danger, that the continuance and 
enforcement of this latter measure would promote the views of 
those leaders, by goading a majority of the people and of the 
legislature to the pitch of physical resistance, by State authority, 
against the execution of the laws of the Union ; the only effec¬ 
tual means by which the Union could be dissolved. Your mod¬ 
esty has prompted you to disclaim the character of leaders of 
the federal party at that time. If I am to consider this as more 
than a mere disavowal of form, I must say that the charge, 
which I lament to see has excited so much of your sensibility, 
had no reference to any of you. 

Your avowed object.is controversy. You call for a precise 
state of facts and evidence; not affecting, so far as you know, 
any one of you, but to enable you fairly to meet and to answer it. 

And you demand, 


14 


1. Who are the persons designated as leaders of the party 
prevailing in Massachusetts in the year 1808, whose object I 
assert was, and had been, for several years, a dissolution of the 
Union, and the establishment of a separate confederacy 9 and 

2. The whole evidence, on which that charge is founded. 

You observe that it is admitted, in the statement of the charge, 

that it is not proveable in a court of law, and your inference is, 
that I am of course not in possession of any legal evidence, by 
which to maintain it. Yet you call upon me to name the per¬ 
sons affected by the charge ; a charge in your estimate deeply 
stigmatising upon those persons; and you permit yourselves to 
remind me, that my sense of justice and self-respect oblige me 
to disclose all that I do possess. My sense of justice to you, 
Gentlemen, induces me to remark, that I leave your self-respect 
to the moral influences of your own minds, without presuming to 
measure it by the dictation of mine. 

Suppose, then, that in compliance with your call, I should 
name one, two, or three persons, as intended to be included in 
the charge. Suppose neither of those persons to be one of you. 
You however, have given them notice, that I have no evidence 
against them, by which the charge is proveable in a court of law 
—and you know that I, as well as yourselves, am amenable to 
the laws of the land. Does your self-respect convince you that 
the persons so named, if guilty, would furnish the evidence 
against themselves, which they have been notified that I do not 
possess 9 Are you sure that the correspondence, which would 
prove their guilt, may not in the lapse of twenty-five years have 
been committed to the flames ? In these days of failing and of 
treacherous memories, may they not have forgotten that any 
such correspondence ever existed 9 And have you any guar¬ 
antee to offer, that I should not be called by a summons more 
imperative than yours, to produce in the temple of justice the 
proof which you say I have not, or be branded for a foul and 
malignant slanderer of spotless and persecuted virtue ? Is it not 
besides imaginable that persons may exist, who though twenty- 
five years since driven in the desperation of disappointment, to the 
meditation and preparation of measures tending to the dissolution 
of the Union, perceived afterwards the error of their ways, and 
would now gladly wash out from their own memories their par¬ 
ticipation in projects, upon which the stamp of indelible reproba¬ 
tion has past 9 Is it not possible that some of the conspi¬ 
rators have been called to account before a higher than an 
earthly tribunal for all the good and evil of their lives; and 


15 


whose reputations might now suffer needlessly by the disclosure of 
their names °l I put these cases to you, Gentlemen, as possible, 
to show you that neither my sense of justice nor my self-respect 
does require of me to produce the evidence for which you call, 
or to disclose the names of persons, for whom you have and can 
have no right to speak. 

These considerations appear indeed to me so forcible that it 
is not without surprise, that I am compelled to believe they had 
escaped your observation. I cannot believe of any of you diat 
which I am sure never entered the hearts of some of you, that 
you should have selected the present moment, for the purpose of 
drawing me into a controversy not only with yourselves, but with 
others, you know not whom—of daring me to the denouncement 
of names, which twenty years since I declined committing to the 
ear of confidential friendship; and to the production of evi¬ 
dence which, though perfectly satisfactory to my own mind, and 
perfectly competent for the foundation of honest and patriotic 
public conduct, was adequate in a court of law neither to the 
conviction of the guilty, nor to the justification of the accuser, and 
so explicitly pronounced by myself. 

You say that you have no design nor wish to produce an 
effect on any political party or question whatever,—nor to enter 
into a vindication of the measures publicly adopted and avowed 
by the persons, against whom the above charge has been made. 
But can you believe that this subject could be discussed between 
you and me, as you propose, when calling upon me for a state¬ 
ment, with the avowed intention of refuting it, and not produce 
an effect on any political party or question ? With regard to 
the public measures of those times and the succeeding, which 
you declare to have had your sanction and approbation, it needs 
no disclosure now, that a radical and irreconcileable difference 
of opinion between most of yourselves and me existed. And 
can you suppose that in disclosing names and stating facts, 
known perhaps only to myself, I could consent to separate them 
from those public measures, which you so cordially approved 
and which I so deeply lamented ? Must your own defence 
against these charges forever rest exclusively upon a solemn pro¬ 
testation against the natural inference from the irresistible ten¬ 
dency of action to the secret intent of the actor ? That a states¬ 
man who believes in human virtue should be slow to draw this 
inference against such solemn asseverations, I readily admit: 
but for the regulation of the conduct of human life, the rules of 
evidence are widely different from those, which receive or ex¬ 
clude testimony in a court of law. Even there, you know, that 


16 


violent presumption is equivalent, in cases affecting life itself, to 
positive proof; and in a succession of political measures through 
a series of years, all tending to the same result, there is an inter¬ 
nal evidence, against which mere denial, however solemn, can 
scarcely claim the credence even of the charity, that believeth 
all things. 

Let me add that the statement authorized by me, as publish¬ 
ed in the National Intelligencer, was made, not only without the 
intention, but without the most distant imagination of offending 
you or of injuring any one of you. But, on the contrary, for the 
purpose of expressly disavowing a charge, which was before the 
public, sanctioned with the name of the late Mr Jefferson, im¬ 
puting to certain citizens of Massachusetts treasonable negotia¬ 
tions with the British government during the war , and express¬ 
ly stating that he had received information of this from me. On 
the publication of this letter, I deemed it indispensably due to 
myself, and to all the citizens of Massachusetts, not only to deny 
having ever given such information, but all knowledge of such a 
fact. And the more so, because that letter had been published, 
though without my knowledge, yet I was well assured, from mo¬ 
tives of justice and kindness to me. It contained a declaration 
by Mr. Jefferson himself, frank, explicit and true, of the charac¬ 
ter of the motives of my conduct, in all the transactions of my 
intercourse with him, during the period of the embargo. This 
was a point upon which his memory could not deceive him, a 
point upon which he was the best of witnesses ; and his testimo¬ 
ny was the more decisive because given at a moment, as it 
would seem, of great excitement against me upon different views 
of public policy even then in conflict and producing great exac¬ 
erbation in his mind. The letter contained also a narrative of a 
personal interview between himself and me, in March, 1808, 
and stated that I had then given him information of facts, which 
induced him to consent to the substitution of the nonintercourse 
for the embargo ; and also that I had apprized him of this trea¬ 
sonable negotiation by citizens of Massachusetts, to secede from 
the Union during the war, and perhaps rejoin after the peace. 
Now the substitution of the nonintercourse for the embargo, took 
place twelve months after this interview, and at a succeeding 
session of Congress, when I was not even a member of that 
body. The negotiation for seceding from the Union with a view 
to rejoin it afterwards, if it ever existed, must have been during 
the war. I had no knowledge of such negotiation, or even of 
such a design. I could therefore have given no such informa¬ 
tion. 


17 


But in giving an unqualified denial to this statement of Mr 
Jefferson, and in showing that upon the face of the letter itself it 
could not be correct, it was due to him to show, that the mis¬ 
statement on his part was not intentional; that it arose from an 
infirmity of memory, which the letter itself candidly acknowl¬ 
edged ; that it blended together in one indistinct mass, the in¬ 
formation which I had given him in March, 1808, with the pur¬ 
port of confidential letters, which I had written to his and my 
friends in Congress a year after, and with events, projects, and 
perhaps mere suspicions, natural enough as consequences of the 
^preceding times, but which occurred, if at all, from three to six 
years later, and of which he could not have had information from 
me. The simple fact of which I apprized Mr Jefferson was, 
that, in the summer of 1807, about the time of what was some¬ 
times called the affair of the Leopard and the Chesapeake, I 
had seen a letter from the governor of Nova Scotia to a person 
in Massachusetts, affirming that the British government had cer¬ 
tain information of a plan by that of France, to conquer the Bri¬ 
tish possessions and effect a revolution in the United States, by 
means of a war between them and Great Britain. As 
the United States and Great Britain were in 1807 at peace, 
a correspondence with the governor of Nova Scotia, held 
by any citizen of the United States, imported no violation 
of law ; nor could the correspondent be responsible for anything 
which the governor might write. But my inferences from this 
fact were, that there existed between the British government 
and the party in Massachusetts opposed to Mr Jefferson, a chan¬ 
nel of communication through the governor of Nova Scotia, 
which he was exercising to inflame their hatred against France 
and their jealousies against their own government. The letter 
was not to any leader of the federal party; but I had no doubt 
it had been shewn to some of them, as it had been to me, with¬ 
out injunction of secrecy ; and, as I supposed, with a view to 
convince me that this conspiracy between Napoleon and Mr 
Jefferson really existed. How that channel of communication 
might be further used, was matter of conjecture; for the mission 
of Mr John Henry was nine months after my interview with Mr 
Jefferson, and precisely at the time when I was writing to my 
friends in Congress the letters urging the substitution of the non¬ 
intercourse for the embargo. Of Mr Henry’s mission I knew 
nothing till it was disclosed by himself in 1812. 

It was in these letters of 1808 and 1809, that I mentioned 
the design of certain leaders of the federal party to effect a dis¬ 
solution of the Union, and the establishment of a Northern Con- 

3 


18 


federacy. This design had been formed, in the winter of 1803 
and 4, immediately alter, and as a consequence of the acquisi¬ 
tion of Louisiana. Its justifying causes to those who entertain¬ 
ed it were, that the annexation of Louisiana to the Union tran¬ 
scended the constitutional powers of the government of the 
United States. That it formed in fact a new confederacy to 
which the States, united by the former compact, were not bound 
to adhere. That it was oppressive to the interests and destruc¬ 
tive to the influence of the Northern section of the confederacy, 
whose right and duty it therefore was to secede from the new 
body politic, and to constitute one of their own. This plan was 
so far matured, that the proposal had been made to an individual 
to permit himself, at the proper time, to be placed at the head 
of the military movements, which it was foreseen would be ne¬ 
cessary for carrying it into execution. In all this there was no 
overt act of treason. In the abstract theory of our government 
the obedience of the citizen is not due to an unconstitutional law. 
He may lawfully resist its execution. If a single individual un¬ 
dertakes this resistance, our constitutions, both of the United 
States, and of each separate State, have provided a judiciary 
power, judges and juries, to decide between the individual and 
the legislative act, which he has resisted as unconstitutional. 
But let us suppose the case that legislative acts of one or more 
States of this Union are past, conflicting with acts of Congress, 
and commanding the resistance of their citizens against them, 
and what else can be the result but war,—civil war ? and is not 
that de facto , a dissolution of the Union, so far as the resisting 
States are concerned ? and what would be the condition of every 
citizen in the resisting States? Bound by the double duty of al¬ 
legiance to the Union, and to the State, he would be crushed 
between the upper and the nether millstone, with the perform¬ 
ance of every civic duty converted into a crime, and guilty of 
treason, by every act of obedience to tbe law. 

That the power of annexing Louisiana to this Union had not 
been delegated to Congress, by the constitution of the United 
States, was my own opinion ; and it is recoided upon the jour¬ 
nals of the senate, of which I was then a member. But far from 
thinking the act itself a justifying cause for secession from the 
Union, I regarded it as one of the happiest events which had 
occurred since the adoption of the constitution. I regretted that 
an accidental illness in my family, which detained me on my 
way to Washington to take my seat in the senate, deprived me 
of the power of voting for the ratification of the treaties, by 
which the cession was secured. I arrived at Washington on the 


19 


fourth day of the session of Congress, and on entering the city, 
passed by the secretary of the senate, who was going from the 
capitol to the president’s house, with the advice and consent of 
that body to the ratification. 

1 took my seat in the senate the next day. Bills were imme¬ 
diately brought into Congress making appropriations to the 
amount, of fifteen millions of dollars for carrying the convention 
into effect, and for enabling the president to take possession of 
the ceded territory. These measures were opposed by all the 
members of the senate, who had voted against the ratifications of 
the conventions. They were warmly and cordially supported 
by me. I had no doubt of the constitutional power to make the 
treaties. It is expressly delegated in the constitution. The 
power of making the stipulated payment for the cession, and of 
taking possession of the ceded territory, was equally unquestion¬ 
ed by me ;—they were constructive powers, but I thought them 
fairly incidental, and necessarily consequent upon the power to 
make the treaty. But the power of annexing the inhabitants of 
Louisiana to the Union, of conferring upon them, in a mass, all 
the rights, and requiring of them all the duties, of citizens of the 
United States, it appeared to me had not been delegated to 
Congress by the people of the Union, and could not have been 
delegated by them, without the consent of the people of Louis¬ 
iana themselves. I thought they required an amendment to the 
constitution, and a vote of the people of Louisiana; and I offer¬ 
ed to the senate, resolutions for carrying both those measures in¬ 
to effect, which were rejected. 

It has been recently ascertained, by a tetter from Mr Jefferson 
to Mr Dunbar, written in July 1803, after he had received the 
treaties, and convened Congress to consider them, that, in his 
opinion, the treaties could not be carried into effect without an 
amendment to the constitution : and that the proposal for such 
an amendment would be the first measure adopted by them, at 
their meeting. Yet Mr Jefferson, president of the United States, 
did approve the acts of Congress, assuming the power which he 
had so recently thought not delegated to them, and as the Ex¬ 
ecutive of the Union carried them into execution. 

Thus Mr Jefferson, President of the United States, the fede¬ 
ral members of Congress, who opposed and voted against the 
ratification of the treaties, and myself, all concurred in the opin¬ 
ion, that the Louisiana cession treaties transcended the constitu¬ 
tional powers of the government of the United States. But it 
was, after all, a question of constructive power. The power of 
making the treaty was expressly given without limitation. The 


20 


sweeping clause, by whicli all powers, necessary and proper for 
carrying into effect those expressly delegated, may be under¬ 
stood as unlimited. It is to be presumed, that when Mr Jeffer¬ 
son approved and executed the acts of Congress, assuming the 
doubtful power, he had brought his mind to acquiesce in this 
somewhat latitudinarian construction. I opposed it as long and 
as far as my opposition could avail. I acquiesced in it, after it 
had received the sanction of all the organized authority of the 
Union, and the tacit acquiesence of the people of the United 
States and of Louisiana. Since which time, so far as this pre¬ 
cedent goes, and no farther, I have considered the question as 
irrevocably settled. 

But, in reverting to the fundamental principle of all our con¬ 
stitutions, that obedience is not due to an unconstitutional law, 
and that its execution may be lawfully resisted, you must admit, 
that had the laws of Congress for annexing Louisiana to the 
Union been resisted, by the authority of one or more States of 
the then existing confederacy, as unconstitutional, that resist¬ 
ance might have been carried to the extent of dissolving the 
Union, and of forming a new confederacy ; and that if the con¬ 
sequences of the cession had been so oppressive upon New 
England and the North, as was apprehended by the federal 
leaders, to whose conduct at that time all these observations re¬ 
fer, the project which they did then form of severing the Union, 
and establishing a Northern Confederacy would in their applica¬ 
tion of the abstract principle to the existing state of things have 
been justifiable. In their views, therefore, I impute to them 
nothing which it could be necessary for them to disavow; and, 
accordingly, these principles were distinctly and explicitly avow¬ 
ed, eight years afterwards, by my excellent friend, Mr Quincy, 
in his speech upon the admission of Louisiana, as a State, into 
the Union. Whether he had any knowledge of the practical 
project of 1S03 and 4, I know not; but the argument of his 
speech, in which he referred to my recorded opinions upon the 
constitutional power, was an eloquent exposition of the justifying 
causes of that project, as I had heard them detailed at the time. 
That project, 1 repeat, had gone to the length of fixing upon a 
military leader for its execution ; and although the circumstan¬ 
ces of the times never admitted of its execution, nor even of its 
full developement, I had yet no doubt, in 1S08 and 1S09, and 
have no doubt at this time, that it is the key to all the great move¬ 
ments of these leaders of the federal party in New England, 
from that time forward, till its final catastrophe in the Hartford 
Convention. 


21 


Gentlemen, l observe among the signers of your letter, the 
names of two members of that Convention, together with that of 
the son of its president. You will not understand me as affirm¬ 
ing, that either of you was privy to this plan of military execu¬ 
tion, in 1804. That may be known to yourselves and not to 
me. A letter of your Grst signer, recently published, has dis¬ 
closed the fact, that he, although the putative was not the real 
father of the Hartford Convention. As he, who has hitherto 
enjoyed unrivalled, the honors, is now disposed to bestow upon 
others the shame of its paternity, may not the ostensible and the 
real character of other incidents attending it, be alike diversified, 
so that the main and ultimate object of that assembly, though 
beaming in splendor from its acts, was yet in dim eclipse to the 
vision of its most distinguished members 7 

However this may be, it was this project of 1803 and 4, 
which, from the time when I first took my seat in the senate of 
the United States, alienated me from the secret councils of those 
leaders of the federal party. 1 was never initiated in them. I 
approved and supported the acquisition of Louisiana; and from 
the first moment that the project of separation was made known 
to me, I opposed to it a determined and inflexible resistance. 

It is well known to some of you, Gentlemen, that the cession 
of Louisiana was not the first occasion upon which my duty to 
my country prescribed to me a course of conduct different from 
that which would have been dictated to me by the leaders and 
the spirit of party. More than one of you was present at a 
meeting of members of the Massachusetts Legislature on the 
27th of May 1802, the day after I first took my seat as a mem¬ 
ber of that legislature. A proposal then made by me, to admit 
to the council of the Commonwealth, a proportional representa¬ 
tion of the minority as it existed in the two houses, has, I trust, 
not been forgotten. It was the first act of my legislative life, 
and it marked the principle by which my whole public career 
has been governed, from that day to this. My proposal was un¬ 
successful, and perhaps it forfeited whatever confidence might 
have been otherwise bestowed upon me as a party follower. My 
conduct in the senate of the United States, with regard to the 
Louisiana cession, was not more acceptable to the leaders of the 
federal party, and some of you may perhaps remember that it 
was not suffered to pass without notice or censure, in the public 
federal journals of the time. 

With regard to the project of a separate Northern Confede¬ 
racy, formed in the winter of ISC3 and 4, in consequence of the 
Louisiana cession, it is not to me that you must apply for copies 


22 


of the correspondence in which it was contained. To that and 
to every other project of disunion, I have been constantly op¬ 
posed. My principles do not admit the right even of the peo¬ 
ple, still less of the legislature of any one State in the Union, to 
secede at pleasure from the Union. No provision is made for 
the exercise of this right, either by the federal or any of the 
State constitutions. The act of exercising it, presupposes a de¬ 
parture from the principle of compact and a resort to that of force. 

If, in the exercise of their respective functions, the legislative, 
executive, and judicial authorities of the Union on one side, and 
of one or more States on the other, are brought into direct colli¬ 
sion with each other, the relations between the parties are no 
longer those of constitutional right, but of independent force. 
Each party construes the common compact for itself. The con¬ 
structions are irreconcileable together. There is no umpire be¬ 
tween them, and the appeal is to the sword, the ultimate arbiter 
of right between independent States, but not between the mem¬ 
bers of one body politic. 1 therefore hold it as a principle with¬ 
out exception, that whenever the constituted authorities of a 
State, authorize resistance to any act of Congress, or pronounce 
it unconstitutional, they do thereby declare themselves and their 
State quoad hoc out of the pale of the Union. That there is no 
supposable case, in which the people of a State might place 
themselves in this attitude, by the primitive right of insurrection 
against oppression, 1 will not affirm : but they have delegated no 
such power to their legislatures or their judges ; and if there be 
such a right, it is the right of an individual to commit suicide— 
the right of an inhabitant of a populous city to set fire to his own 
dwelling house. These are my views. But to those, who 
think that each State is a sovereign judge, not only of its own 
rights, but of the extent of powers conferred upon the general 
government by the people of the whole Union ; and that each 
State, giving its own construction to the constitutional powers of 
Congress, may array its separate sovereignty against every act 
of that body transcending this estimate of their powers—to say 
of men holding these principles, that, for the ten years from 1S04 
to 1814, they were intending a dissolution of the Union, and the 
formation of a new Confederacy, is charging them with nothing 
more than with acting up to their principles. 

To the purposes of party leaders intending to accomplish the 
dissolution of the Union and a new Confederacy, two postulates 
are necessary. First, an act or acts of Congress, which may 
be resisted, as unconstitutional; and, secondly, a state of ex¬ 
citement among the people of one or more States of the Union 


23 


sufficiently inflamed, to produce acts of the State legislatures, 
conflicting with the acts of Congress. Resolutions of the legis¬ 
latures denying the powers of Congress, are the first steps in this 
march to disunion; but they avail nothing, without subsequent 
and corresponding action. The annexation of Louisiana to the 
Union was believed to be unconstitutional, but it produced no ex¬ 
citement to resistance among the people. Its beneficial conse¬ 
quences to the whole Union were soon felt, and took away all 
possibility of holding it up as the labarum of a political religion of 
disunion. The projected separation met with other disasters and 
slumbered, till the attack of the Leopard on the Chesapeake, 
followed by the Orders in Council of 11th November, 1807, led 
to the embargo of the 22d December of that year. The first of 
these events brought the nation to the brink of war with Great 
Britain ; and there is good reason to believe that the second was 
intended as a measure familiar to the policy of that government, 
to sweep our commerce from the ocean, carrying into British 
ports every vessel of ours navigating upon the seas, and holding 
them, their cargoes, and their crews in sequestration, to aid in 
the negotiation of Mr Rose, and bring us to the terms of the Bri¬ 
tish cabinet. This was precisely the period, at which the gov¬ 
ernor of Nova Scotia was giving to his correspondent in Massa¬ 
chusetts, the friendly warning from the British government of the 
revolutionizing and conquering plan of France, which was com¬ 
municated to me, and of which I apprized Mr Jefferson. The 
embargo, in the mean time, had been laid, and had saved most 
of our vessels and seamen from the grasp of the British cruizers. 
It had rendered impotent the British Orders in Council; but, at 
the same time, it had choaked up the channels of our own com¬ 
merce. As its operation bore with heavy pressure upon the 
commerce and navigation of the North, the federal leaders soon 
began to clamour against it; then to denounce it as unconstitu¬ 
tional ; and then to call upon the Commercial States to concert 
measures among themselves, to resist its execution. The ques¬ 
tion made of the constitutionality of the embargo, only proved, 
that, in times of violent popular excitement, the clearest delega¬ 
tion of a power to Congress will no more shield the exercise of 
it from a charge of usurpation, than that of a power the most 
remotely implied or constructive. The question of the consti¬ 
tutionality of the embargo was solemnly argued before the Dis¬ 
trict Court of the United States at Salem; and although the 
decision of thejudge was in its favor, it continued to be argued 
to the juries; and even when silenced before them, was in the 
distemper of the times so infectious, that the juries themselves 


24 


habitually acquitted those charged with the violation of that law. 
There was little doubt, that if the question of constitutionality had 
been brought before the State judiciary of Massachusetts, the 
decision of the court would have been against the law. The 
first postulate for the projectors of disunion, was thus secured. 
The second still lingered ; for the people, notwithstanding their 
excitement, still clung to the Union, and the federal majority in the 
legislature was very small. Then was brought forward the first 
project for a Convention of Delegates from the New England 
States to meet in Connecticut, and then was the time, at which I 
urged with so much earnestness, by letters to my friends at 
Washington, the substitution of the non-intercourse for the em¬ 
bargo. 

The non-intercourse was substituted. The arrangement with 
Mr Erskine soon afterwards ensued; and in August, 1809, I 
embarked upon a public mission to Russia. My absence from the 
United States was of eight years’ duration, and I returned to take 
charge of the department of State in 1817. 

The rupture of Mr Erskine’s arrangement, the abortive mis¬ 
sion of Mr Jackson, the disclosures of Mr John Henry, the war 
with Great Britain, the opinion of the judges of the Supreme 
Court of Massachusetts, that by the constitution of the United 
States, no power was given either to the president or to Con¬ 
gress, to determine the actual existence of the exigencies, upon 
which the militia of the several States may be employed in the 
service of the United States, and the Hartford Convention, all 
happened during my absence from this country. I forbear to 
pursue the narrative. The two postulates for disunion were 
nearly consummated. The interposition of a kind Providence, 
restoring peace to our country and to the world, averted the most 
deplorable of catastrophes, and turning over to the receptacle of 
things lost upon earth, the adjourned Convention from Hartford 
to Boston, extinguished (by the mercy of Heaven, may it be 
forever !) the projected New England Confederacy. 

Gentlemen, 1 have waved every scruple, perhaps even the 
proprieties of my situation, to give you this answer, in considera¬ 
tion of that long and sincere friendship for some of you, which 
can cease to beat only with the last pulsation of my heart. But 
I cannot consent to a controversy with you. Here, if you please, 
let our joint correspondence rest. I will answer for the 
public eye, or for the private ear, at his option, either of you, 
speaking for himself upon any question which he may justly 
deem necessary, for the vindication of his own reputation. 
But I can recognise among you no representative charac- 


25 


ters. Justly appreciating the filial piety of those, who have 
signed your letter in behalf of their deceased sires, I have no 
reason to believe that either of those parents would have au¬ 
thorized the demand of names, or the call for evidence which 
you have made. With the father of your last signer, I had, in 
the year 1809, one oi more intimately confidential conversations 
on this very subject, which I have flattered myself, and still be¬ 
lieve, were not without their influence upon the conduct of his 
last and best days. His son may have found no traces of this 
among his father’s papers. He may believe me that it is never¬ 
theless true. 

It is not improbable that at some future day, a sense of solemn 
duty to my country, may require of me to disclose the evidence 
which I do possess, and for which you call. But of that day the 
selection must be at my own judgment, and it may be delayed 
till I myself shall have gone to answer for the testimony l may 
bear, before the tribunal of your God and mine. Should a dis¬ 
closure of names even then be made by me, it will, if possible, 
be made with such reserve, as tenderness to the feelings of the 
living, and to the families and friends of the dead may admonish. 

But no array of numbers or of power shall draw me to a dis¬ 
closure, which l deem premature, or deter me from making it, 
when my sense of duty shall sound the call. 

In the mean time, with a sentiment of affectionate and una¬ 
bated regard for some, and of respect for all of you, permit me 
to subscribe myself, 

Your friend and fellow citizen, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 


4 


* 


APPEAL 


TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. 


The following appeal is made to you, because the charges 
which have rendered it necessary were exhibited by your high¬ 
est public functionary, in a communication designed lor the eyes 
of all; and because the citizens of every State in the union have 
a deep interest in the reputation of every other State. 

It is well known, that, during the embargo, and the succeeding 
restrictions on our commerce, and also during the late war with 
Great Britain, the State of Massachusetts was sometimes charg¬ 
ed with entertaining designs, dangerous, if not hostile, to the 
Union of the States. This calumny, having been engendered 
at a period of extreme political excitement, and being considered 
like the thousand others which at such times are fabricated by 
party animosity, and which live out their day and expire, has 
hitherto attracted very little attention in this Slate. It stood on 
the same footing with the charge against Hamilton, for pecula¬ 
tion; against the late President Adams, as being in favor of a 
monarchy and nobility, and against Washington himself, as hos¬ 
tile to France, and devoted to British interests. Calumnies which 
were seldom believed by any respectable members of the party 
which circulated them. 

The publication by the President of the United States, in the 
National Intelligencer of October last, has given an entirely new 
character to these charges against the citizens of Massachusetts. 
They can no longer be considered as the anonymous slanders 
of political partisans ; but as a solemn and deliberate impeach¬ 
ment by the first magistrate of the United States, and under the 
responsibility of his name. It appears also that this denunciation, 
though now for the first time made known to the public, and to the 
parties implicated, (whoever they may be,) was contained in 
private letters of Mr Adams, written twenty .years ago, to mem¬ 
bers of the general government; and that he ventures to state it 
as founded on unequivocal evidence within his own knowledge. 

It was impossible for those who had any part in the affairs of 
Massachusetts during the period in question, to suffer such a 
charge to go forth to the world, and descend to posterity, with¬ 
out notice. The high official rank of the accuser, the silent, but 
baneful influence of the original secret denunciation, and the de- 



27 


liberate and unprovoked repetition of it in a public journal, au* 
thorized an appeal to Mr Adams, for a specification ol the par¬ 
ties, and of the evidence, and rendered such an appeal absolutely 
imperative. No high-minded honorable man, of any party, or of 
any State in our confederacy, could expect that the memory of 
illustrious friends deceased, or the characters of the living, should 
be left undefended, through the fear of awakening long extin¬ 
guished controversies, or of disturbing Mr Adams’ retirement. 
Men who feel a just respect for their own characters, and for 
public esteem, and who have a corresponding sense of what 
is due to the reputation of others, will admit the right of all who 
might be supposed by the public to be included in Mr Adams’ 
denunciation, to call upon him to disperse the cloud with which 
he had enveloped their characters. Such persons had a right to 
require that the innocent should not suffer with the guilty, if any 
such there were ; and that the parties against whom the charge 
was levelled, should have an opportunity to repel and disprove it. 
Mr Adams had indeed admitted that his allegations could not be 
proved in a court of law, and thereby prudently declined a legal 
investigation ; but the persons implicated had still a right to know 
what the evidence was, which he professed to consider as ‘une¬ 
quivocal,’ in order to exhibit it to the tribunal of the public, 
before which he had arraigned them. He had spoken of that 
evidence as entirely satisfactory to him. They had a right to 
ascertain whether it would be alike satisfactory to impartial, up¬ 
right, and honorable men. 

It being determined that this denunciation could not be suffer¬ 
ed to pass unanswered, some question arose as to the mode in 
which it should be noticed. Should it be by a solemn public 
denial, in the names of all those who came within the scope of 
Mr Adams’ accusation, including, as it does, all the leaders of 
the federal party from the year 1803 to 1814? Such a course 
indeed would serve in Massachusetts, where the characters of 
the patties are known, most fully to countervail the charges of 
Mr Adams ; but this impeachment of their character, may be 
heard in distant States, and in future times. A convention 
might have been called of all who had been members of the 
federal party in the legislature during those eleven years ; and a 
respectable host they would be, in numbers, intelligence, educa¬ 
tion, talents, and patriotism ; yet it might then have been said— 

‘ You mean to overpower your accuser by numbers ; you intend 
to seize this occasion to revive the old and long extinct federal 
party ; your purpose is to oppress by popular clamour a falling 
chief; you are avenging yourselves for his ancient defection 


28 


from your party; you are conscious of guilt, but you endeavor 
to diminish the odium of it by increasing the number of your 
accomplices.’ These reasons had great weight ; and the course 
adopted after deliberation appeared to be free from all objection. 

The undersigned, comprising so many of the federal party, 
that Mr Adams should not be at liberty to treat them as unwor¬ 
thy of attention, and yet so few that he could not charge them 
with arraying a host against him, addressed to him the above let¬ 
ter of November 26th. They feel no fear that the public will 
accuse them of presumption in taking upon themselves the task 
of vindicating the reputation of the federal party. The share 
which some of them had in public affairs during the period over 
which Mr Adams has extended his charges and insinuations, and 
the decided, powerful, and well merited influence enjoyed by 
their illustrious friends, now deceased, most assuredly gave to 
the undersigned a right to demand the grounds of the accusa¬ 
tion ; a right which Mr Adams himself repeatedly admits might 
have been justly and properly exercised by each of them seve¬ 
rally. Their demand was founded on the common principle, 
recognized alike in the code of honor and of civil jurisprudence, 
that no man should make a charge affecting the rights or charac¬ 
ter of others, without giving them an opportunity of knowing the 
grounds on which it was made, and of disproving it, if untrue. 
To this plain and simple demand the undersigned received the 
answer contained in the above letter of Mr Adams, dated on the 
30th of December. 

It will be seen that Mr Adams altogether refuses to produce any 
evidence in support of his allegations. The former part of his 
letter contains his reasons for that refusal; and in the other part 
he repeats the original charges in terms even more offensive than 
before. When addressing to him our letter, we thought we might 
reasonably expect from his sense of what was due to himself, as 
well as to us, that he would fully disclose all the evidence which he 
professed to consider so satisfactory; and we felt assured, that 
in that event we should be able fully to explain or refute it, or to 
show that it did not affect any distinguished members of the fed¬ 
eral party. And if, on the other hand, he should refuse to dis¬ 
close that evidence, we trusted that the public would presume, 
what we unhesitatingly believe, that it was because he had no 
evidence that would hear to he submitted to an impartial and in¬ 
telligent community. Mr Adams has adopted the latter course; 
and if the reasons that he has assigned for it should appear to 
be unsatisfactory, our fellow-citizens, we doubt not, will join us 
in drawing the above inference. We therefore proceed to an 
examination of those reasons. 


6 29 


Mr Adams first objects to our making a joint application to 
him; acknowledging the right of each one alone to inquire 
whether he was included in this vague and sweeping denuncia¬ 
tion. It is not easy to see why any one should lose this ac¬ 
knowledged right, by uniting with others in the exercise of it; 
nor why this mere change of form should authorize Mr Adams 
to disregard our claim. But there are two objections to the 
course which he has condescended to point out, as the only one 
in which he could be approached on this occasion. Any indi¬ 
vidual who should have applied to him in that mode might have 
been charged with arrogance; and to each of them in turn he 
might have tauntingly replied, ‘that the applicant was in no dan¬ 
ger of suffering as one of the ‘ leaders ’ in Massachusetts, and 
had no occasion to exculpate himself from a charge conveyed in 
the terms used by Mr Adams.’ The other objection is still more 
decisive. After allowing to this denunciation all the weight that 
it can be supposed to derive from the personal or official charac¬ 
ter of the accuser, we trust there are few citizens of Massachu¬ 
setts who would be content to owe their political reputation to his 
estimation of it, and condescend to solicit his certificate to acquit 
them of the suspicion of treasonable practices. 

Mr Adams next objects, that we make our application as the 
representatives of a great and powerful party, which, at the time 
referred to, commanded, as he says, a devoted majority in the 
legislature of the Commonwealth ; and he denies our right to 
represent that party, We have already stated the objections to 
a joint application by all, who might be included in this denun¬ 
ciation, and to a separate inquiry by each individual; and some 
of the reasons which we thought, justified the course which we 
have pursued. We certainly did not arrogate to ourselves the 
title of ‘ leadersand Mr Adams may enjoy, undisturbed, all 
the advantage which that circumstance can give him in this con¬ 
troversy. But we freely avowed such a close political connex¬ 
ion with all who could probably have been included under that 
appellation, as to render us responsible for all their political 
measures that were known to us ; and we, therefore, must have 
been either their dupes, or the associates in their guilt. In either 
case, we were interested, and, as we apprehend, entitled, to 
make this demand of Mr. Adams. 

As to the suggestion, that he spoke only of ‘ certain leaders’ 
of the federal party, and not of the party itself ; we certainly in¬ 
tended to deny oun knowledge and belief that any such plot had 
been contrived by any party whatever in this State ; and it is 
explicitly so stated in our letter. This language would include 


30 


any number, whether large or small, who might be supposed te 
have leagued together, for the purpose suggested by Mr Adams. 
There seems, therefore, to be but little ground for this technical 
objection, that we do not take the issue tendered by his charge^ 
But we wish to examine a little further this distinction which 
Mr Adams relies upon, between a political party and its leaders. 
From the nature of representative government, it results, that, 
in conducting the business of their legislative and popular assem¬ 
blies, some individuals will be found to take a more active and 
conspicuous part than the rest, and will be regarded as essen¬ 
tially influencing public opinion, whilst they are generally them¬ 
selves merely impelled by its force. But this influence, in 
whatever degree it may exist, is temporary, and is possessed by 
a constant succession of different persons. Those who possess 
it for the time being, are called leaders , and, in the course of ten 
years, they must amount to a very numerous class.- Their 
measures and political objects must necessarily be identified with 
those of their whole party. To deny this is to pronounce sen¬ 
tence of condemnation upon popular government. For, admit¬ 
ting it to be true, that the people may be occasionally surprised 
and misled by those who abuse their confidence into measures 
repugnant to their interests and duty, still, if the majority of 
them can, for ten years together, be duped, and led hoodwinked 
to the very precipice of treason, by their perfidious guides, 

* without participating in their secret designs, or being privy to 
their existence,* they show themselves unfit for self-government. 
It is not conceivable, that the federal party, which, at that time, 
constituted the great majority of Massachusetts, will feel them¬ 
selves indebted to the president of the United States, for a 
compliment paid to their loyalty, at the expense of their charac¬ 
ter for intelligence and independence. 

It is in the above sense only, that a free people can recognize 
any individuals as leaders; and in this sense, every man, who is 
conscious of having enjoyed influence and consideration with his 
party, may well deem himself included in every opprobrious and 
indiscriminate impeachment of the motives of the leaders of that 
party. But it would be arrogance to suppose himself alone in¬ 
tended, when the terms of the accusation imply a confederacy 
of many. And while, on the one hand, it would betray both 
selfishness and egotism to confine his demand of exculpation to 
himself; so, on the other, it is impossible to unite in one appli¬ 
cation all who might justly be considered as his associates. It 
follows then that any persons, who, from the relations they sus¬ 
tained to their party, may apprehend that the public will apply 




31 


to them charges of this vague description, may join in such num* 
bers as they shall think fit, to demand an explanation ol charges, 
which will probably affect some of them, and may affect them 
all. The right, upon the immutable principles of justice, is 
commensurate with the injury, and should be adapted to its 
character. 

Again, who can doubt that the public reputation of high mind¬ 
ed men who have embarked in die same cause and maintained 
a communion of principles, is a common property, which all 
who are interested are bound to vindicate as occasion may re¬ 
quire—the present for the absent—the living for the dead—the 
son for the father. 

If any responsible individual at Washington should declare 
himself to be in possession of unequivocal evidence, that the 
leaders of certain States in our confederacy, were now maturing 
a plot for the separation of the States, might not the members of 
Congress, now there, from the States thus accused, insist upon a 
disclosure of evidence and names ? Would they be diverted 
from their purpose by an evasion of the question, on the ground, 
that, as the libeller had not named any individuals, so there was 
no one entitled to make this demand ? or would they be satisfied 
with a misty exculpation of themselves? This cannot be imag¬ 
ined. They would contend for the honor of their absent friends, 
of their party, and of their States. These were among our mo¬ 
tives for making this call. We feel an interest in all these par¬ 
ticulars, and especially in the unsullied good name of friends and 
associates, who, venerable for eminent talents, virtues and public 
services, have gone down to the grave unconscious of any impu¬ 
tation on their characters. 

Mr Adams admits our right to make severally, the inquiries 
which have been made jointly; though in a passage eminent for 
its equivocation, he expresses a doubt whether we can come 
within the terms of his charges. On this remarkable passage we 
submit one more observation. As Mr Adams declares that he 
well knew from unequivocal evidence the exigence of such trea¬ 
sonable designs, he must have known, whether the parties who 
addressed him were engaged in those designs. Why then re¬ 
sort to the extraordinary subterfuge, that if the signers of that 
letter were not leaders, then the charges did not refer to them 

There is then no right on the part of Mr Adams to prescribe 
to the injured parties, (and all are injured who may be compre¬ 
hended in his vague expressions) the precise form in which they 
should make their demand. And his reiusal to answer that 
which we have made, is like that of one who having fired a ran- 


32 


dom shot among ^ crowd, should protest against answering to 
the complaint of any whom he had actually wounded, because 
they could not prove that his aim was directed at them. 

Another reason assigned by Mr Adams for his refusal to name 
the individuals whom he intended to accuse, is that it might ex¬ 
pose him to a legal prosecution. He certainly had not much to 
apprehend in this respect from any of the undersigned. As he 
had originally announced that he had no legal evidence to prove 
his charge, and the undersigned had nevertheless called on him 
to produce such as he did possess, he must have been sufficiently 
assured that their purpose was not to resort to a court of justice, 
but to the tribunal of public opinion ; and that they had virtually 
precluded themselves from any other resort. 

Mr Adams suggests another objection to naming the parties 
accused, on account of the probable loss of evidence, and the 
forgetfulness of witnesses, after the lapse of twenty years. 

He undoubtedly now possesses all the evidence that he had 
in October last, when he published his statement. If he then 
made this grave charge against certain of his fellow-citizens, 
with the knowledge that there was no evidence by which it could 
be substantiated, where was his sense of justice ? If he made it 
without inquiring, and without regarding, whether he had any 
such evidence or not, intending if called upon to shield himself 
from responsibility by suggesting this loss of documents and 
proofs, where was then his self-respect ? 

But did it never occur to Mr Adams, that the parties accused 
might also in this long lapse of time have lost the proofs of thejr 
innocence ? He has known for twenty years past that he had 
made this secret denunciation of his ancient political friends; 
and he must have anticipated the possibility that it might at some 
time be made public, if he had not even determined in his own 
mind to publish it himself. He has therefore had ample oppor¬ 
tunity, and the most powerful motives, to preserve all the evi¬ 
dence that might serve to justify his conduct on that occasion. 
On the other hand, the parties accused, and especially those 
venerable patriots who during this long interval have descended 
to the grave, unconscious of guilt , and ignorant that they were 
even suspected , have foreseen no necessity , and had no motive 
whatever , to preserve any memorials of their innocence. We 
venture to make this appeal to the conscience of Mr Adams him¬ 
self. 

Mr. Adams in one passage appeals to the feelings of the un¬ 
dersigned, and intimates his surprise that they should have se- 
febted the present moment for making their demand. He did 


33 


them but justice in supposing that this consideration had its influ¬ 
ence on their minds. Their only fear was that their appeal might 
be considered as an attack on an eminent man, whom the public 
favor seemed to have deserted. But the undersigned had no 
choice. Their accuser had selected his own time for bringing 
this subject before the world ; and they were compelled to follow 
him with their defence, or consent that the seal should be set on 
their own reputations, and on those of their deceased friends for¬ 
ever. We said with truth, that it was not our design nor wish to 
produce an effect on any political party or question. We were 
not unaware that our appeal might lead to such measures as 
would seriously affect either Mr. Adams or ourselves in the pub¬ 
lic opinion. But whilst w r e did not wish for any such result, so 
neither were we disposed to shrink from it. 

The necessity of correcting some mistakes in a letter of Mr 
Jefferson, which had been lately published, is assigned by Mr 
Adams as the reason for his publication. If that circumstance 
has brought him before the public at a time, or in a manner, in¬ 
jurious to his feelings, or unpropitious to his political views and 
expectations, we are not responsible for the consequences. We 
would observe, however, that it would have been apparently a 
very easy task to correct those mistakes, without adding this 
unprovoked denunciation against his native State. 

Finally, Mr. Adams declines all further correspondence with 
us on this subject; and even intimates an apprehension that he 
may have already condescended too far, and waved 1 even the 
proprieties of his situation,’ in giving us such an answer as he has 
given. 

He very much misapprehends the character of our institutions, 
and the principles and spirit of his countrymen, if he imagines 
that any official rank, however elevated, will authorise a man to 
publish injurious charges against others, and then to refuse all re¬ 
paration and even explanation, lest it w 7 ould tend to impair his 
dignity. If he is in any danger of such a result in the present in¬ 
stance, he should have foreseen it when about to publish his 
charges, in October last. If ‘ the proprieties of his situation’ 
have been violated, it was by that original publication, and not by 
too great condescension in answer to our call upon him, for an 
act of simple justice towards those who felt themselves ag¬ 
grieved. 

We have thus examined all the reasons by which Mr. Adams 
attempts to justify his refusal to produce the evidence in support 
of his allegations ; and we again appeal with confidence to our 


34 


fellow citizens throughout the United States, for the justice of 
our conclusion, that no such evidence exists. 

The preceding observations suffice, we trust, to shew, that we 
have been reluctantly forced into a controversy, which could not 
be shunned, without the most abject degradation ; that it was 
competent to us to interrogate Mr Adams, in the mode adopted, 
and that he declines a direct answer for reasons insufficient, and 
unsatisfactory; thus placing himself in the predicament of an un¬ 
just accuser. 

Here, perhaps, we might safely rest our appeal, on the ground 
that it is impossible strictly to prove a negative. But though we 
are in the dark ourselves, with respect to the evidence on which 
he relies, to justify his allegation of a 4 project,’ at any time, to 
dissolve the Union, and establish a northern confederacy, (which 
is the only point to which our inquiries were directed,) it will be 
easy by a comparison of dates, and circumstances, founded on his 
own admissions, to demonstrate (what we know must be true) 
that no such evidence applies, to any man who acted, or to the 
measures adopted in Massachusetts at, and posterior to the time 
of the embargo. The project itself, so far as it applies to those 
men and measures, and probably altogether, existed only in the 
distempered fancy of Mr. Adams. 

4 This design’ (he says) 4 had been formed in the winter of 
‘1 803—4, immediately after , and as a consequence of, the ac¬ 
quisition of Louisiana. Its justifying causes, to those who en- 
* tertained it were, that the annexation of Louisiana to the Union 
4 transcended the constitutional powers of the government of the 
4 United States. That it formed, in fact, a new confederacy to 
‘ which the states, united by the former compact, were not bound 
4 to adhere. That it was oppressive to the interests, and destruc- 
4 tive to the influence, of the northern section of the confederacy, 

4 whose right and duty it therefore was, to secede from the new 
4 body politic, and to constitute one of their own. This plan was 
4 so far matured, that a proposal had been made to an individ ml, 

4 to permit himself, at the proper time, to be placed at the head of 
4 the military movements, which, it was foreseen, would be neces¬ 
sary for carrying it into execution.’ The interview with Mr 
Jefferson was in March 1808. In May Mr Adams ceased to be 
a senator. In the winter of 1808—9 he made his communica¬ 
tions to Mr. Giles. In August 1809 he embarked for Europe, 
three years before the war j and did not return until three years 
after the peace ;—and he admits the impossibility of his having 
given to Mr. Jefferson information of negotiations between our 
citizens, and the British, during the war, or having relation to the 


35 


war—condescending to declare, that he had no knowledge of 
such negotiations. 

The other measures, to which Mr Adams alludes, were of the 
most public character ; and the most important of them better 
known, in their day, to others, than they could be to him, resid¬ 
ing in a foreign country; and if the chain by which these mea¬ 
sures are connected with the supposed plot shall appear to be 
wholly imaginary, these measures will remain to be supported, as 
they ought to be, on their own merits. The letter from the Go¬ 
vernor of Nova Scotia, as will presently be seen, is of no possible 
significance in any view, but that of having constituted the only 
information (as he says) which Mr Adams communicated to 
Mr Jefferson at the time of his first, and only confidential inter¬ 
view. It was written in the summer of 1807, this country being 
then in a state of peace. The Governor’s correspondent is to 
this hour unknown to us. He was not > says Mr Adams, a 
1 leader’ of the Federal party. The contents of the letter were 
altogether idle, but the effect supposed by Mr Adams to be 
contemplated by the writer, could be produced only by giving 
them publicity. It was communicated to Mr Adams without 
any injunction of secrecy. He has no doubt it was shewn to 
others. Its object was, he supposes, to accredit a calumny, that 
Mr Jefferson, and his measures, were subservient to France. 
That the British government were informed of a plan, determin¬ 
ed upon by France, to effect a conquest of the British Provinces 
on this continent, and a revolution in the government of the 
United States, as means to which, they were first to produce a 
war between the United States and England. A letter of this 
tenor was no doubt shewn to Mr Adams, as we must believe up¬ 
on his word. The discovery would not be surprising, that British, 
as well as French officers, and citizens, in a time of peace with 
this country, availed themselves of many channels for conveying 
their speculations and stratagems, to other innocent ears as well 
as to those of Mr Adams, with a view to influence public opin¬ 
ion. But the subject matter of the letter was an absurdity.—. 
Who did not know that in 1807, after the battle of Trafalgar, the 
crippled navy of France could not undertake to transport even a 
single regiment across the British Channel ? And if the object 
was the conquest of the British Provinces by the United States 
alone, how could a revolution, in their government, which must 
divide, and weaken it, promote that end 

The folly of a British Governor in attempting to give currency 
to a story which savours so strongly of the burlesque, can be 
equalled only by the credulity of Mr Adams, in believing it cal- 


36 


ciliated to produce effect; and if he did so believe, it furnishes 
a criterion by which to estimate the correctness and impartiality 
of his judgment concerning the weight and the application of 
the other evidence which he still withholds, and from which he 
has undertaken with equal confidence to 4 draw his inferences.’ 
After the adjustment of the diplomatic preliminaries with Mr 
Giles and others, Mr Adams communicated nothing to Mr 
Jefferson, but the substance of the Nova Scotia letter. If Mr 
Adams had then known and believed in the 4 project,’ (the 
4 key’ to all the future proceedings) it is incredible that it should 
not have been deemed worthy of disclosure —at that time , and 
on that occasion. 

In this connexion we advert for a moment to the temper of 
mind, and the state of feelings, which probably gave rise to, and 
accompanied, this communication of Mr Adams. Circumstances 
had occurred tending to embitter his feelings, and to warp his 
judgment. 

Mr Adams, just before the time of his interview with Mr 
Jefferson, had voted for the embargo. He had been reproached 
for having done this on the avowed principle, of voting , and not 
deliberating , upon the Executive recommendation. He had 
been engaged with his colleague in a controversy on this subject. 
His conduct, as he affirms, and as was the fact, had been cen¬ 
sured, in terms of severity, in the public press. The Legisla¬ 
ture of Massachusetts had elected another person to succeed him 
in the Senate of the United States, and had otherwise expressed 
such a strong and decided disapprobation of the measures which 
he had supported, that he felt compelled to resign his seat be¬ 
fore the expiration of his term. These might be felt as injuries, 
even by men of placable temper. It is probable that his feel¬ 
ings of irritation may be traced back to the contest between 
Jefferson and the elder Adams. It is no secret, that the latter 
had cherished deep and bitter resentment against Hamilton , and 
certain other ‘leaders’ of the federal party, supposed to be 
Hamilton’s friends. It would not be unnatural that the son 
should participate in these feelings of the father. When Mr 
Adams visited Mr Jefferson, and afterwards made his disclosures 
to Mr Giles and others, having lost the confidence of his own 
party, he had decided, 4 as subsequent events doubtless confirm¬ 
ed,’ to throw himself into the arms of his father's opponents. 
But there was a load of political guilt, personal and hereditary, 
still resting upon him, in the opinions of the adverse party. No 
ordinary proof of his unqualified abjuration of his late politics 
would be satisfactory;—some sacrifice, which should put his sin« 


37 


cerity to the test, and place an impassable barrier between him and 
his former party, was indispensable. And what sacrifice was so 
natural, what pledge so perfect, as this private denunciation ! 
Nor does the effect seem to have been miscalculated or over¬ 
rated. Mr Jefferson declares that it raised Mr Adams in his 
mind. Its eventual consequences were highly, and permanently 
advantageous to Mr Adams. And though he assured Mr Giles, 
that he had renounced his party, without personal views; yet 
this 1 denial,’ considering that he had the good fortune to receive 
within a few months , the embassy to Russia, ‘ connected with 
other circumstances,’ which ended in his elevation to the presi¬ 
dency, does indeed, according to his own principles of presump¬ 
tive evidence, require an effort of ‘ the charity which believeth 
all things,’ to gain it * credence.' 

To these public, and indisputable facts, we should not now re¬ 
vert, had Mr. Adams given us the names, and evidence, as re¬ 
quested ; and had he forborne to reiterate his injurious insinua¬ 
tions. But as they now rest wholly upon the sanction of his 
opinion, respecting evidence which he alone possesses, we think 
it but reasonable to consider, how far these circumstances may 
have heated his imagination, or disturbed his equanimity, and 
given to the evidence, which he keeps from the public eye, an 
unnatural, and false complexion. 

We proceed then to a brief examination of the alleged project 
of 1803—4—of the Northern confederacy. 

In the first place, We solemnly disavow all knowledge of such 
a project, and all remembrance of the mention of it, or of any 
plan analogous to it, at that or any subsequent period. Second¬ 
ly, While it is obviously impossible for us to controvert evidence 
of which we are ignorant, we are well assured it must be equally 
impossible to bring any facts which can be considered evidence 
to bear upon the designs or measures of those, who, at the time 
of Mr Adams’ interview with Mr Jefferson, and afterwards, dur¬ 
ing the war, took an active part in the public affairs of Massa¬ 
chusetts. 

The effort discernible throughout this letter, to connect those 
later events, which were of a public nature, and of which the 
natural and adequate causes were public, with the mysterious 
project, known only to himself, of an earlier origin and distinct 
source, is in the last degree violent and disingenuous. 

The cession of Louisiana to the United States, when first pro- 
mulged, was a theme of complaint and dissatisfaction, in this part 
of the country. This could not be regarded as factious or un¬ 
reasonable, when it is admitted by Mr Adams, that Mr Jefferson 


and himself entertained constitutional scruples and objections to 
the provisions of the treaty of cession. Nothing, however, like a 
popular excitement grew out of the measure, and it is stated by 
JVlr Adams that this project ‘ slumberedV until the period of the 
embargo in December 1807. Suppose then for the moment 
(what we have not a shadow of reason for believing, and do not 
believe) that upon the occasion of the Louisiana Treaty, ‘certain 
leaders’ influenced by constitutional objections, (admitted to have 
been common to Mr Jefferson, Mr Adams and themselves,) had 
conceived a project of separation, and of a Northern Confeder¬ 
acy, as the only probable counterpoise to the manufacture of new 
States in the South, does it follow that when the public mind be¬ 
came reconciled to the cession, and the beneficial consequences 
of it were realized, (as it is conceded by Mr Adams, was the 
case) these same ‘ leaders,’ whoever they might be, would still 
cherish the embryo project, and wait for other contingencies, to 
enable them to effect it 9 On what authority can Mr Adams 
assume that the project merely ‘slumbered’ for years, if his 
private evidence applies only to the time of its origin. 

The opposition to the measures of government in 1808 arose 
from causes, which were common to the people, not only of 
New-England, but of all the commercial states, as was manifest¬ 
ed in New-York, Philadelphia, and elsewhere. By what pro¬ 
cess of fair reasoning then can that opposition be referred to, or 
connected with a plan, which is said to have originated in 1S04, 
and to have been intended to embrace merely a northern con¬ 
federacy 9 The objection to the Louisiana treaty was founded 
on the just construction of the compact between sovereign states. 
It was believed in New-England, that new members could not 
be added to the confederacy beyond the territorial limits of the 
contracting parties without the consent of those parties. This 
was considered as a fair subject of remonstrance, and as justify¬ 
ing proposals for an amendment of the constitution. But so far 
were the Federal party from attempting to use this as an addi¬ 
tional incentive to the passions of the day, that in a report made 
to the Legislature of 1813 by a committee of which Mr Adams’s 
‘ excellent friend ’ Josiah Quincy was chairman, (Louisiana hav¬ 
ing at this time been admitted into the Union) it is expressly 
stated, that ‘ they have not been disposed to connect this great 
‘ constitutional question with the transient calamities of the day , 
‘from which it is in their opinion very apparently distinguished 
‘ both in its cause and consequences.’ That in their view of this 
great constitutional question, they have confined themselves to 
topics and arguments drawn from the constitution, ‘with the hope 


39 


‘ of limiting the further progress of the evil, rather than with the 
4 expectation of immediate relief during the continuance of exist- 
4 ing influences in the national administration.’ This report was 
accepted ; and thus the 4 project’ instead of being used as fuel 
to the flame, is deliberately taken out of it, and presented to the 
people by 4 the leaders’ as resting on distinct considerations 
from the 4 transient calamities,’ and for which present redress 
ought neither to be sought, or expected. 

To the embargo imposed in December, 1807, nearly all the 
delegation of Massachusetts*was opposed. The pretexts for im¬ 
posing it were deemed by her citizens a mockery of her suffer¬ 
ings. Owning nearly one third of the tonnage in the United 
States, she felt that her voice ought to be heard in what related 
to its security. Depending principally on her foreign trade and 
fisheries for support, her situation appeared desperate under the 
operation of this law in its terms perpetual. It was a bitter ag¬ 
gravation of her sufferings to be told, that its object was to pre¬ 
serve these interests. No people, at peace, in an equal space of 
time, ever endured severer privations. She could not consider 
the annihilation of her trade as included in the power to regulate 
it. To her lawyers, statesmen, and citizens in general, it ap¬ 
peared a direct violation of the constitution. It was universally 
odious. The disaffection was not confined to the federal party. 
Mr Adams, it is said, and not contradicted, announced in his 
letters to the members of Congress, that government must not 
rely upon its own friends. The interval from JS07 to IS 12 
was filled up by a series of restrictive measures which kept alive 
the discontent and irritation of the popular mind. Then followed 
the war, under circumstances which aggravated the public dis¬ 
tress. In its progress, Massachusetts was deprived of garrisons 
for her ports—with a line of sea-coast equal in extent to one 
third of that of all the other maritime States, she was left during 
the whole war nearly defenceless. Her citizens subject to in¬ 
cessant alarm ;—a portion of the coin - .try invaded, and taken 
possession of as a conquered territory. Her own militia array¬ 
ed, and encamped at an enormous expense; pay and subsistence 
supplied from her nearly exhausted treasury, and reimbursement 
refused, even to this day. Now, what, under the pressure and 
excitement of these measures, was the conduct of the federal 
party, the 4 devoted majority,’ with the military force of the 
State in their hands;—with the encouragement to be derived 
from a conviction that the Northern States were in sympathy 
with their feelings, and that government could not rely on its own 
friends 9 Did they resist the laws 7 Not in a solitary instance. 


40 


Did they threaten a separation of the States ? Did they array 
their forces with a show of such disposition Did the govern¬ 
ment or people of Massachusetts in any one instance swerve from 
their allegiance to the Union The reverse of all this is the 
truth. Abandoned by the national government, because she 
declined, for reasons which her highest tribunal adjudged to be 
constitutional, to surrender her militia into the hands of a military 
prefect, although they were always equipped, and ready and 
faithful under their own officers, she nevertheless clung to the 
Union as to the ark of her safety, she ordered her well trained 
militia into the field, stationed them at the points of danger, de¬ 
frayed their expenses from her own treasury, and garrisoned 
with them the national forts. All her taxes and excises were 
paid with punctuality and promptness, an example by no means 
followed by some of the States, in which the cry for war had 
been loudest. These facts are recited for no other purpose but 
that of preparing for the inquiry, what becomes of Mr Adams’ 
4 key,’ his 4 project,’ and his 4 postulates ?’ The latter were to 
all intents and purposes, to use his language, 4 consummated.’ 

Laws unconstitutional in the public opinion had been enacted. 
A great majority of an exasperated people were in a state of the 
highest excitement. The legislature (if his word be taken) was 
under 4 the management, of the leaders.’ The judicial courts 
were on their side, and the juries were, as he pretends, contami¬ 
nated. A golden opportunity had arrived. 4 Now was the win¬ 
ter of their discontent made glorious summer.’ All the combus¬ 
tibles for revolution were ready. When, behold! instead of a 
dismembered Union, military movements, a northern confedera¬ 
cy, and British alliance, accomplished at the favorable moment 
of almost total prostration of the credit and power of the national 
rulers, a small and peaceful deputation of grave citizens, selected 
from the ranks of civil life, and legislative councils, assembled at 
Hartford. There, calm and collected, like the Pilgrims, from 
whom they descended, and not unmindful of those who had 
achieved the independence of their country, they deliberated on 
the most effectual means of preserving for their fellow-citizens 
and their descendants the civil and political liberty which had 
been won, and bequeathed to them. 

The character of this much injured assembly has been sub¬ 
jected to heavier imputations, under an entire deficiency not on¬ 
ly of proof, but of probability, than ever befel any other set of 
men, discharging merely the duties of a committee of a legisla¬ 
tive body, and making a public report of their doings to their 
constituents. These imputations have never assumed a precise 


41 


form but vague opinions have prevailed of a combination to sepa¬ 
rate the Union. As Mr Adams has condescended, by the manner 
in which he speaks of that convention, to adopt or countenance 
those imputations on its proceedings, we may be excused for mak¬ 
ing a few more remarks on the subject, although this is not a 
suitable occasion to go into a full explanation and vindication of 
that measure. 

The subject naturally resolves itself into four points, or questions: 

First, the constitutional right of a State to appoint delegates to 
such a convention: 

Secondly, the propriety and expediency of exercising that right 
at that time: 

Thirdly, the objects intended to be attained by it, and the pow¬ 
ers given for that purpose by the State to the delegates; and 

Fourthly, the manner in which the delegates exercised their 
power. 

As to the first point, it will not be doubted that the people have 
a right ‘ in an orderly and peaceable manner to assemble to con¬ 
sult upon the common good and to request of their rulers ‘ by 
the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the 
wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.’ This is 
enumerated in the constitution of Massachusetts among our natu¬ 
ral, essentia], and unalienable rights; and it is recognized in the 
constitution of the United States ; and who then shall dare to set 
limits to its exercise, or to prescribe to us the manner in which it 
shall be exerted ? We have already spoken of the state of public 
affairs and the measures of the general government, in the year 
1814, and of the degree of excitement, amounting nearly to des¬ 
peration, to which they had brought the minds of the people in 
this and the adjoining States. Their sufferings and apprehensions 
could no longer be silently endured, and numerous meetings of 
the citizens had been held on the occasion in various parts of the 
country. It was then thought that the measures called for in 
such an emergency would be more prudently and safely matured 
and promoted by the government of the State, than by unorgan¬ 
ized bodies of individuals, strongly excited by what they consid¬ 
ered to be the unjust and oppressive measures of the general 
government. If all the citizens had the right, jointly and severally, 
to consult for the common good, and to seek for a redress of their 
grievances, no reason can be given why their legislative assembly, 
which represents them all, may not exercise the same right in 
their behalf. We nowhere find any constitutional prohibition or 
restraint of the exercise of this power by the State ; and if not 
prohibited it is reserved to the State. We maintain then that the 
people had an unquestionable right, in this as well as in other 
modes, to express their opinions of the measures of the general 
government, and to seek, ‘ by addresses, petitions or remon¬ 
strances,’ to obtain a redress of their grievances and relief from 
their sufferings. 

6 



42 


If there was no constitutional objection to this mode of pro¬ 
ceeding, it will be readily admitted that it was in all respects the 
most eligible. In the state of distress and danger which then op¬ 
pressed all hearts, it was to be apprehended, as before suggested, 
that large and frequent assemblies of the people might lead to 
measures inconsistent with the peace and order of the community. 
If an appeal was to be made to the government of the United 
States, it was likely to be more effectual, if proceeding from the 
whole State collectively, than from insulated assemblies of citi¬ 
zens ; and the application in that form would tend also to repress 
the public excitement, and prevent any sudden and unadvised 
proceedings of the people, by holding out to them the prospect 
of relief through the influence of their State government. This 
latter consideration had great weight with the legislature ; and it 
is believed to have been the only motive that could have induced 
some of the delegates to that convention to quit the seclusion to 
which they had voluntarily retired, to expose themselves anew to 
all the fatigue and anxiety, the odium, the misrepresentations, 
calumnies, and unjust reproaches, which so frequently accompany 
and follow the best exertions for the public good. 

If each one of the States had the right thus to seek a redress 
of grievances, it is clear that two or more States might consult 
together for the same purpose ; and the only mode in which they 
could consult each other was by a mutual appointment of dele¬ 
gates for that purpose. 

But this is not the only ground, nor is it the strongest, on 
which to rest the justification of the proceedings in question. If 
the government of the United States in a time of such distress 
and danger should be unable, or should neglect, to afford protec¬ 
tion and relief to the people, the legislature of the State would not 
only have a right, but it would be their duty, to consult together, 
and, if practicable, to furnish these from their own resources. 
This would be in aid of the general government. How severely 
the people of Massachusetts experienced at that time the want of 
this ability or disposition, in the general government, we need not 
repeat. If the legislature of a single State might under such cir¬ 
cumstances endeavour to provide for its defence, without infring¬ 
ing the national compact, no reason is perceived, why they might 
not appoint a committee or delegates, to confer with delegates of 
neighbouring States who were exposed to like dangers and suffer¬ 
ings, to devise and suggest to their respective legislatures measures 
by which their own resources might be employed ‘ in a manner 
not repugnant to their obligations as members of the Union.’ A 
part of New-England had been invaded, and was then held by the 
enemy, without an effort by the general government to regain it; 
and if another invasion, which was then threatened and generally 
expected, had taken place, and the New-England States had been 
still deserted by the government, and left to rely on their own re¬ 
sources, it is obvious that the best mode of providing for their com- 


43 


mon defence would have been by a simultaneous and combined 
operation of all their forces. The States originally possessed this 
right, and we hold that it has never been surrendered, nor taken 
from them by the people. 

The argument on this point might be easily extended; but we 
may confidently rely on the two grounds above mentioned, to wit, 
the right of the people, through their State legislatures or other¬ 
wise, to petition and remonstrate for a redress of their grievan¬ 
ces ; and the right of the States in a time of war and of threaten¬ 
ed invasion to make the necessary provisions for their own de¬ 
fence. To these objects was confined the whole authority con¬ 
ferred by our legislature on the delegates whom they appointed. 
They were directed to meet and confer with other delegates, and 
to devise and suggest measures of relief for the adoption of the 
respective States ; but not to represent or act for their constitu¬ 
ents by agreeing to, or adopting any such measures themselves, 
or in behalf of the States. 

But whilst we strenuously maintain this right of the people, to 
complain, to petition, and to remonstrate in the strongest terms 
against measures which they think to be unconstitutional, unjust, 
or oppressive, and to do this in the manner which they shall deem 
most convenient or effectual, provided it be in an ‘ orderly and 
peaceable mannerwe readily admit that a wise people would 
not hastily resort to it, especially in this imposing form, on every 
occasion of partial and temporary discontent or suffering. We 
therefore proceed to consider, 

Secondly, the propriety and expediency of adopting that meas¬ 
ure in the autumn of 1814. On this point it is enough to say, 
that the grievances that were suffered and the dangers that were 
apprehended at that time, and the strong excitement which they 
produced among all the people, which is stated more particularly 
elsewhere in this address, rendered some measures for their re¬ 
lief indispensably necessary. If the legislature had not under¬ 
taken their cause, it appeared to be certain, as we have already 
suggested, that the people would take it into their own hands ; 
and there was reason to fear that the proceedings in that case 
might be less orderly and peaceful, and at the same time, less ef¬ 
ficacious. 

Thirdly. We have already stated the objects which our State 
government had in view, in proposing the convention at Hartford, 
and the powers conferred on their delegates. If, instead of these 
avowed objects, there had been any secret plot for a dismember¬ 
ment of the Union, in which it had been desired to engage the 
neighboring States, the measures for that purpose we may sup¬ 
pose would have been conducted in the most private manner pos¬ 
sible. On the contrary, the resolution of our legislature for ap¬ 
pointing their delegates, and prescribing their powers and duties, 
was openly discussed and passed in the usual manner ;and a copy 




44 


of it was immediately sent, by direction of the legislature, to 
the governor of every State in the Union. 

Fourthly. The only remaining question is, whether the dele¬ 
gates exceeded or abused their powers. As to this, we have only 
to refer to the report of their proceedings, and to their journal, 
which is deposited in the archives of this State. 

That report, which was published immediately after the ad¬ 
journment of the convention, and was soon after accepted by the 
legislature, holds forth the importance of the Union as paramount 
to all other considerations; enforces it by elaborate reasoning, 
and refers in express terms to Washington 1 s farewell address , as 
its text book. If, then, no power to do wrong was given by the 
legislature to the convention, and if nothing unconstitutional, dis¬ 
loyal, or tending to disunion, was in fact done (all which is man¬ 
ifest of record), there remains no pretext for impeaching the mem¬ 
bers of the convention by imputing to them covert and nefarious 
designs, except the uncharitable one, that the characters of the 
men justify the belief, that they cherished in their hearts wishes, 
and intentions, to do, what they had no authority to execute, and 
what in fact they did not attempt. On this head, to the people 
of New England who were acquainted with these characters, no 
explanation is necessary. For the information of others, it behoves 
those of us who were members to speak without reference to our¬ 
selves. With this reserve we may all be permitted to say, with¬ 
out fear of contradiction, that they fairly represented whatever of 
moral, intellectual, or patriotic worth, is to be found in the char¬ 
acter of the New England community; that they retained all the 
personal consideration and confidence, which are enjoyed by the 
best citizens, those who have deceased, to the hour of their death, 
and those who survive, to the present time. For the satisfaction 
of those who look to self-love, and to private interest, as springs 
of human action, it may be added, that among the mass of citi¬ 
zens, friends, and connexions, whom they represented, were 
many, whose fortunes were principally vested in the public funds, 
to whom the disunion of the States would have been ruin. That 
convention may be said to have originated with the people. Mea¬ 
sures for relief had been demanded from immense numbers, in 
counties and towns, in all parts of the State, long before it was 
organized. Its main and avowed object was the defence of this 
part of the country against the common enemy. The war then 
wore its most threatening aspect. New England was destitute of 
national troops ; her treasuries exhausted ; her taxes drawn into 
the national coffers. 

The proceedings, and report of the convention, were in confor¬ 
mity with this object. The burden of that report consisted in re¬ 
commending an application to Congress to permit the States to 
provide for their own defence, and to be indemnified for the ex¬ 
pense, by reimbursement, in some shape, from the National Go¬ 
vernment, of, at least, a portion of their own money. This conven- 


45 


tion adjourned early in January. On the 27th of the same month, 
an act of Congress was passed, which gave to the State Govern¬ 
ments, the very power which was sought by Massachusetts ; viz 
—that of * raising, organizing and officering’ state troops, «to be 
employed in the State raising the same, or in an adjoining State’ 
and providing for their pay and subsistence. This we repeat was 
the most important object aimed at by the institution of the conven¬ 
tion, and by the report of that body. Had this act of Congress pass¬ 
ed, before the act of Massachusetts, for organizing the convention, 
that convention never would have existed. Had such an act been an¬ 
ticipated by the convention, or passed before its adjournment, that 
assembly would have considered its commission as in a great mea¬ 
sure, superseded. For although it prepared and reported sundry 
amendments to the constitution of the United States, to be sub¬ 
mitted to all the States, and might even, if knowing of this act of 
Congress, have persisted in doing the same thing ; yet, as this 
proposal for amendments could have been accomplished in other 
modes, they could have had no special motive for so doing, but 
what arose from their being together ; and from the considera¬ 
tion which might be hoped for, as to their propositions, from 
that circumstance. It is thus matter of absolute demonstration, 
to all who do not usurp the privilege of the searcher of hearts 
that the design of the Hartford convention and its doings were 
not only constitutional and laudable, but sanctioned by an act of 
Congress, passed after the report was published, not indeed with 
express reference to it, but with its principal features, and thus 
admitting the reasonableness of its general tenor, and principal 
object. It is indeed grievous to perceive Mr Adams condescend¬ 
ing to intimate that the Convention was adjourned to Boston, and 
in a strain of rhetorical pathos connecting his imaginary plot, then 
at least in the thirteenth year of its age, with the * catastrophe’ 
which awaited the ultimate proceedings of the convention. That 
assembly adjourned without day , after making its report. It was 
ipso facto dissolved, like other Committees. One of its resolu¬ 
tions did indeed purport that ‘ if the application of these States 
to the government of the United States, ( recommended in afore¬ 
going resolution) should he unsuccessful , and peace should not be 
concluded , and the defence of these States should be neglected as it 
has been , since the commencement of the war, it will be, in the 
opinion of this Convention, expedient for the Legislature of the 
several States, to appoint delegates to another Convention to meet 
at Boston on the third Tuesday of June next, with such powers 
and instructions as the exigency of a crisis, so momentous may 
require.’ On this it is to be observed, 

First, That the Convention contemplated in the foregoing reso¬ 
lution never was appointed, and never could have been, according 
to the terms of that resolution ; because, as is shown above, the 
object of the intended application to Congress had been attained. 
And, Secondly, if the contingencies mentioned in that resolution 


46 


had occurred, the question of forming such a new Convention, 
and the appointment of the delegates, must have gone into the 
hands of new assemblies; because all the Legislatures of the 
New England states would have been dissolved, and there would 
have been new elections, before the time proposed for the second 
convention. And, lastly, it is matter of public notoriety that 
the report of this convention produced the effect of assuaging the 
public sensibility, and operated to repress the vague and ardent 
expectations entertained by many of our citizens, of immediate 
and effectual relief, from the evils of their condition. 

We pass over the elaborate exposition of constitutional law in 
the President’s letter having no call, nor any inclination at this 
time to controvert its leading principles. Neither do we com¬ 
ment upon, though we perceive and feel, the unjust, and we 
must be excused for saying, insidious mode in which he ha3 
grouped together distant and disconnected occurrences, which 
happened in his absence from the country, for the purpose of pro¬ 
ducing, by their collocation, a glaring and sinister effect upon.the 
federal party. They were all of a public nature. The argu¬ 
ments concerning their merit or demerit have been exhausted ; 
and time, and the good sense of an intelligent people, will place 
them ultimately in their true light, even though Mr Adams should 
continue to throw obstacles in the way to this harmonious reac¬ 
tion of public opinion. 

It has been a source of wonder and perplexity to many in our 
community, to observe the immense difference in the standards 
by which public opinion has been led to measure the same kind 
of proceedings, when adopted in different States. No pretence 
is urged that any actual resistance to the laws, or forcible viola¬ 
tion of the constitutional compact, has ever happened in Massa¬ 
chusetts. Constitutional questions have arisen here as well as in 
other States. It is surprising and consolatory that the number 
has not been greater, and that the termination of them has not 
been less amicable. To the discussion of some of them great ex¬ 
citement was unavoidably incident; but in comparing cases with 
causes and effects, the impartial observer will perceive nothing to 
authorize any disparagement of this State , to the advantage of 
the pretensions of other members of the confederacy. 

On this subject we disclaim the purpose of instituting invidious 
comparisons; but every one knows that Massachusetts has not 
been alone in complaints and remonstrances against the acts of 
the national government. Nothing can be found on the records 
of her legislative proceedings, surpassing the tone of resolutions 
adopted in other States in reprobation of the alien and sedition 
laws. In one State opposition to the execution of a treaty, in 
others to the laws instituting the bank, has sounded the note of 
preparation for resistance in more impassioned strains than were 
ever adopted here. And at this moment, claims of State rights, 
and protests against the measures of the national government, in 


47 


terms, lor which no parallel can be found in Massachusetts, are 
ushered into the halls of Congress, under the most solemn and 
imposing forms of State authority. It is not our part to censure 
or to approve these proceedings. Massachusetts has done noth¬ 
ing at any time, in opposition to the national government, and 
she has said nothing in derogation of its powers, that is not fully 
justified by the constitution ; and not so much as other States 
have said, with more decided emphasis; and, as it is believed, 
without the stimulus of the same actual grievances. We are no 
longer at a loss to account for the prevalence of these prejudices 
against this part of the Union, since they can now be traced, not 
only to calumnies openly propagated in the season of bitter con¬ 
tention by irritated opponents, but to the secret and hitherto un¬ 
known aspersions of Mr Adams. 

Mr Jefferson, then at the head of government, declares that 
the effect of Mr Adams’ communication to him at their interview 
in March, 1808, was such on his mind, as to induce a change in 
the system of his administration. Like impressions were doubt¬ 
less made on Mr Giles and others, who then gave direction to the 
public sentiment. Notwithstanding these disadvantages, if Mr 
Adams had not seen fit to proclaim to the world his former se¬ 
cret denunciation, there had still been room to hope that those 
impressions would be speedily obliterated; that odious distinc¬ 
tions between the people of different States would be abolished ; 
and that all would come to feel a common interest in referring 
symptoms of excitement against the procedure of the national 
government, which have been manifested successively on so 
many occasions, and in so many States, to the feelings, which, in 
free governments, are always roused by like causes, and are char¬ 
acteristic, not of a factious but a generous sensibility to real or 
supposed usurpation. But Mr Adams returns to the charge with 
new animation ; and by his political legacy to the people of 
Massachusetts, undertakes to entail upon them lasting dishonor. 
He reaffirms his convictions of the reality of the old project, per¬ 
sists in connecting it with later events, and dooms himself to the 
vocation of proving that the federal party were either traitors or 
dupes. Thus he has again (but not like a healing angel) trou¬ 
bled the pool, and we know not when the turbid waters will sub 
side. 

It must be apparent, that we have not sought, but have been 
driven into this unexpected and unwelcome controversy. On 
the restoration of peace in 1815, the federal party felt like men, 
who, as by a miracle, find themselves safe from the most appall¬ 
ing peril. Their joy was too engrossing to permit a vindictive 
recurrence to the causes of that peril. Every emotion of animosi¬ 
ty was permitted to subside. From that time until the appear¬ 
ance of Mr Adams’ publication, they had cordially joined in the 
general gratulation on the prosperity of their country, and the 
security of its institutions. They were conscious of no deviation 


48 


iVi/iii li jjfj/ 


\ 


from patriotic duty, in any measure, wherein they had acted, or 
which had passed with their approbation. They were not only 
contented, but grateful, in the prospect of the duration of civil 
liberty, according to the forms which the people had deliberately 
sanctioned. These objects being secured, they cheerfully acqui¬ 
esced in the administration of government, by whomsoever the 
people might call to places of trust, and of honor. 

With such sentiments and feelings, the public cannot but par¬ 
ticipate in the astonishment of the undersigned, at the time, the 
manner, and the nature, of Mr Adams’ publication. We make 
no attempt to assign motives to him, nor to comment on such as 
may be imagined. 

The causes of past controversies, passing, as they were, to'ob- 
Jivion among existing generations, and arranging themselves, as 
they must do, for the impartial scrutiny of future historians, the 
revival of them can be no less distasteful to the public, than pain¬ 
ful to us. Yet, it could not be expected, that while Mr^Adams, 
from his high station, sends forth the unfounded suggestions o-f 
his imagination, or his jealousy, as materials for present opinion, 
and future history, we should, by silence , give countenance to his 
charges ; nor that we should neglect to vindicate the reputation 
of ourselves, our associates, and our Fathers. 


H. G. OTIS, 

ISRAEL THORNDIKE, 

T. H. PERKINS, 

WM. PRESCOTT, 
DANIEL SARGENT, 
JOHN LOWELL, 

Boston, January 28, 1829. 


WM. SULLIVAN, 

CHARLES JACKSON, 

WARREN DUTTON, 

BENJ. PICKMAN, 

HENRY CABOT, 

Son of the late George CaboC- 

C. C. PARSONS, 

Son of Theophilus Par eon*, E»q. dsceasec-. 


I subscribed the foregoing letter, and not the Reply, for the following reasons? Mr Adams 
in his statement published in the National Intelligencer, spoke of the leaders of the Federal 
party, in the year 1808 and fur several years previous , as engaged in a systematic opposition 
to the general government, having for its object the dissolution of the Union, and the estab¬ 
lishment of a separate confederacy by the aid of a foreign power. As a proof of that disposi¬ 
tion, particular allusion is made to the opposition to the embargo in the Courts of Justice in 
Massachusetts. This pointed the charge directly at my late father,, whose efforts in that cause 
are probably remembered ; and was the reason of my joining in the application to Mr Adams 
to know on what such a charge ivas founded. If this construction of the statement needs con¬ 
firmation, it is to be found in one of the letters lately published in Salem as Mr Adams’s. 

Mr Adams in his answer has extended his accusation to a subsequent period. In the events 
of that time I have not the same interest as in those preceding it; and as the Reply was ne¬ 
cessarily co-extensive with the answer, that reason prevented me from joining in it. I take 
this opportunity, however, to say for myself, that I find in Mr Adams’s answer no justification 
of his charges ; and, in reply to that portion of his letter particularly addressed to me, that I 
have seen no proof, and shall not readily believe, that any portion of my father’s political 
course is to be attributed to the influence there suggested., 


Boston, January 28, 1829. 


FRANKLIN DEXTER. 


























' 
















































































































































































» 

































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proce: 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologie 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATI 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 























































